Mamuri, Sherwin John A.

BS-Pharma 2
Instructions: Review the potential hazards of nanotechnology that you learned in this section.
Then, propose a policy that addresses the potential hazards you identified. Use the template
below for your policy proposal.
1. Name of the Policy Proposal:
2. Proponents
i. Names:
ii. Email:
iii. Telephone:
iv. Organization:
3. Date:
4. Problem statement (100-200 words)
5. Policy statement (200-300 words)
6. Additional Information
I. Timetable for implementation:

I. Preparing for Nanotechnology: Health, Policy, and Emerging Issues

II. Proponents:
- In the longer term, proponents of nanotechnology believe it may deliver revolutionary
advances with profound economic and societal implications. The applications they discuss
involve various degrees of speculation and varying time-frames. The examples below suggest a
few of the areas where revolutionary advances may emerge, and for which early R&D efforts
may provide insights into how such advances might be achieved. Proponents assert that
nanotechnology has the potential to bring revolutionary products to market, reshaping existing
industries and creating new ones. The federal government’s investments under the National
Nanotechnology Initiative also play important roles in other key science and technology
initiatives as well, including the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), the Networking
and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, and the Materials
Genome Initiative (MGI), the National Cancer Moonshot, and cybersecurity.
III. Problem statement
- Today the public is more educated, involved, and concerned about new technologies and
industrial processes and their potential effect on human health and the environment than it
was 50 or 60 years ago, said Kenneth Olden of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. The potential health and environmental effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials
today raises public concern about nanotechnology. Health agencies in the United States have
the responsibility to provide leadership to ensure the thorough assessment of safety and
environmental effects of the new technologies as well as to communicate openly and clearly
about the issues. Some of the new technologies, such as genetically modified foods, are not
well accepted by the public worldwide because health agencies did not involve and educate the
public and policy makers in the beginning when the technology was being developed, stated
Olden. Scientists and the government need to learn from this experience and ensure that this
does not happen with other emerging technologies, observed Olden. Recently, nanotechnology
has received considerable attention from the media. Most of the initial reports have been
positive because of its potential applications in molecular medicine and communication.
However, we should not forget that given the nature of nanoparticles, not all nanomaterials will
be benign. Therefore, it is very important to identify the negative aspects of the technology
before we introduce it to the marketplace. Otherwise, it would set us back for a number of
years, said Olden.
IV. Policy statement
- Policy makers must ensure that nanotechnology is developed as a safe consumer product, said
David Rejeski of Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Many of the governmental
regulatory frameworks we have today were conceived 30–40 years ago, when nanotechnology
did not yet exist and therefore do not specifically address the unique properties of
nanomaterials. One issue is that people do not always trust the government to enforce the
regulations, said Rejeski. What matters to the protection of public health and the environment
is not regulation per se but the enforcement of regulation. Unlike genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) where only a segregated sector is involved and risk prevention is more
manageable, the impacts of nanotechnology will not be confined to one sector, but will be seen
across multiple sectors and multiple products. Given the large investments in applied research
it is not unreasonable that we could see 30–50 new nano-products appearing every month as
more and more research bears fruit and companies drive toward commercialization. Rejeski
suggested that nanotechnology development could encounter four plausible near-term
scenarios that could make nanotechnology either a liability or an asset. He called these
scenarios: “tipping scales,” “nano Bhopal,” “Hollywood wins,” and “old Europe.”
Nanotechnology is planned disruption: it is all about the search for novelty. If we have the
ability to extract radically new properties and behaviors from existing chemicals and
substances, we need to be careful about asserting that we can use past knowledge to predict
future consequences. Policy makers have to bear in mind that nanotechnology is being
developed globally, and not only in industrialized countries but also in developing countries
that do not have strict regulations even for conventional chemicals. Therefore, there is a good
possibility that an accidental exposure or release may happen in a developing country, a small
business, or a research lab. Such an accident does not have to be on the scale of the 1984
Bhopal chemical plant disaster that occurred in India to attract global press coverage and
provide a public backlash against nanotechnology. This scenario cannot be ruled out and it
must be addressed. Many small businesses are receiving large amounts of venture capital
investment and their main goal is to get product to market as fast as possible. If they cut
corners in this process, mistakes could happen and tip the scale to the negative side of the
public's perception of the entire industry (not just the specific technology involved). One way to
guard against this kind of scenario is to use transnational corporations to encourage the
responsible development and use of nanotechnology across their entire supply chain. Today,
the scales of public opinion for or against nanotechnology could tip either way, said Rejeski,
because the benefits of nanotechnology are not yet widely appreciated by the public and the
negative consequences have received more press coverage.

V. Additional information:
In general, European environmental NGOs and activists are more aggressive, radicalized, and
media savvy, and have, to date, promoted a more cautious approach to new technologies than
their American counterparts, said Rejeski. Much of the negative feedback against GMOs came
from Europe, and the movement against nanotech in Europe may also evolve in a similar way.
Rejeski stated that the European Union has developed and refined the precautionary principle
over a number of years. This model rests on the premise that society needs to “learn and act,”
in contrast to the United States approach to new technologies, which is more to “act and then
learn.” Many European countries, as well as the European Union and Commission, also have
rigorous technology assessment systems in place. In contrast, the U.S. Congress eliminated the
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1995, which could have played an important role in
evaluating genomics, nanotechnology, and other new science. According to Rejeski, it is
important to have an office like OTA that can operate at the interface of science and public
policy. This interface is traditionally under-developed and understaffed by government, but
crucial to the development of new technologies in ways that are socially and environmentally
responsible. In concluding, Rejeski suggested that policy makers need to start thinking about
voluntary agreements with industry on the responsible use of nanotechnology and push the
development of more models that bring together universities, NGOs, and industry to develop
principles and best practices. It is very important to start this process today not two years from
now, said Rejeski.